State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court After Admitting Lease, Defendant Cannot Turn Around and Call It Forged—Contradictory Stand at Advanced Trial Stage Impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Amendment Plea Dismissed Employee Has No Right to Leave Encashment Under Statutory Rules: Punjab and Haryana High Court Section 13 of Gambling Act Is Cognizable — Magistrate Can Take Cognizance on Police Report: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Surveyor’s Report Not Sacrosanct, Arbitral Tribunal Has Jurisdiction to Apply Mind Independently: Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurer’s Challenge to Award in Fire Damage Dispute Auction Purchaser Has No Vested Right Without Sale Confirmation: Calcutta HC Upholds Borrower’s Redemption Right Under Pre-Amendment SARFAESI Law Mere Breach of Promise to Marry Doesn’t Amount to Rape: Delhi High Court Acquits Man in False Rape Case Father Is the Natural Guardian After Mother’s Death, Mere Technicalities Cannot Override Welfare of Child: Orissa High Court Restores Custody to Biological Father Assets of Wife and Father-in-Law Can Be Considered in Disproportionate Assets Case Against Public Servant: Kerala High Court Refuses Discharge

Delhi High Court Upholds Equestrian Selection Criteria for Paris Olympics 2024, Dismisses Allegations of Bias

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Delhi, July 2024: The Delhi High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Shruti Vora challenging the selection criteria established by the Equestrian Federation of India (EFI) for the Dressage event at the Paris Olympic Games 2024. The court, in its judgment delivered by Justice Sanjeev Narula, upheld the selection criteria as balanced and in compliance with the Fédération Équestre Internationale (FEI) guidelines.

Shruti Vora, a prominent Indian Dressage athlete, filed a writ petition contesting the selection of Anush Agarwalla by EFI to represent India in the Dressage event at the upcoming Paris Olympics. Vora argued that the selection criteria were arbitrary, discriminatory, and unfairly favored Agarwalla by relying on outdated performance metrics rather than recent form.

The court emphasized that the selection criteria adhered strictly to the FEI standards, ensuring both fairness and rationality. "The criteria reflect a balanced approach, incorporating both historical performance and current form," stated Justice Narula. The selection was based on the highest average scores from the best four Grand Prix events in the past year, which the court found to be a fair measure of an athlete's consistent performance.

Justice Narula reiterated the principle of judicial restraint in interfering with sports federations' selection criteria, citing precedents like Manini Kaushik v. National Rifle Association of India and Sushil Kumar v. Union of India. The court held that judicial intervention is warranted only in cases of manifest arbitrariness or perversity, neither of which was evident in this case.

Addressing the importance of consistency, the court found that Agarwalla's selection was based on his consistent high performance over the specified period. The use of historical performance metrics, the court noted, ensures the selection of stable and consistently high-performing athletes.

The judgment extensively discussed the principles of evaluating evidence and the appropriateness of using both past and recent performance metrics. The court upheld the EFI’s criteria, which mandated that an athlete-horse combination must achieve a minimum eligibility requirement (MER) of 67% in two FEI-listed qualification events between January 1, 2023, and June 24, 2024. In cases where multiple athletes met this requirement, the selection would then be based on the highest average scores from the best four Grand Prix events within the qualifying period.

Justice Narula remarked, "The integration of historical performance data ensures that selections are based on sustained excellence rather than transient form, thereby aligning with the principles of fairness and rationality."

The Delhi High Court’s decision to dismiss the petition underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding fair and rational selection processes in sports. By affirming the EFI's adherence to FEI guidelines, the judgment sends a strong message about the reliability and integrity of established selection criteria. This landmark decision is expected to have a significant impact on future sports selections, reinforcing the legal framework for addressing disputes in sports governance.

 

Date of Decision: July 4, 2024

Shruti Vora v. Equestrian Federation of India & Ors.

Latest Legal News